The APA Planning Advisory Service memo also pointed out the need to protect wildlife and wildlife corridors due to the large area disrupted by industrial-scale solar:
- While solar energy is a renewable, green resource, its generation is not without environmental impacts. Though utility-scale solar facilities do not generate the air or water pollution typical of other large-scale fossil fuel power production facilities, impacts on wildlife habitat and stormwater management can be significant due to the large scale of these uses and the resulting extent of land disturbance. The location of sites, the arrangement of panels within the site, and the ongoing management of the site are important in the mitigation of such impacts.
- In addition to mitigating the visual impact of utility-scale solar facilities, substantial buffers can act as wildlife corridors along project perimeters. The arrangement of panels within a project site is also important to maintain areas conducive to wildlife travel through the site. Existing trees, wetlands, or other vegetation that link open areas should be preserved as wildlife cover. Such sensitivity to the land’s environmental features also breaks up the panel bay groups and will make the eventual restoration of the land to its previous state that much easier and more effective. A perimeter fence is a barrier to wildlife movement, while fencing around but not in between solar panel bays creates open areas through which animals can continue to travel (Figure 6).
planning for utility-scale solar energy facilities, p 6
See also:
The APA Planning Advisory Service memo highlights the long-term damage that is caused to topsoil from industrial-scale solar projects, an important consideration for those areas where agricultural and forestry land uses predominate. This is particularly important for projects that are on or are near ecologically critical lands, such as rivers, habitats of endangered or at risk species, wetlands, or forests. Making sure that solar projects are correctly removed is also critical to restoring the land afterwards.
- Agricultural and forested areas are typical sites for utility-scale solar facility uses. However, the use of prime agricultural land (as identified by the USDA or by state agencies) and ecologically sensitive lands (e.g., riparian buffers, critical habitats, hardwood forests) for these facilities should be scrutinized.
- For a solar facility, the site will need to be graded in places and revegetated to stabilize the soil. That vegetation typically needs to be managed (e.g., by mowing, herbicide use, or sheep grazing) over a long period of time. This prolonged vegetation management can change the natural characteristics of the soil, making restoration of the site for future agricultural use more difficult. While native plants, pollinator plants, and grazing options exist and are continually being explored, there are logistical issues with all of them, from soil quality impacts to compatibility of animals with the solar equipment.
- A deforested site can be reforested in the future, but over an additional extended length of time, and this may be delayed or the land left unforested at the request of the landowner at the time of decommissioning. Clearcutting forest in anticipation of a utility-scale solar application should be avoided but is not uncommon. This practice potentially undermines the credibility of the application, eliminates what could have been natural buffers and screening, and eliminates other landowner options to monetize the forest asset (such as for carbon or nutrient credits).
- For decommissioning, the industry usually stipulates removal of anything within 36 inches below the ground surface. Unless all equipment is specified for complete removal and this is properly enforced during decommissioning, future agricultural operations would be planting crops over anything left in the ground below that depth, such as metal poles, concrete footers, or wires.
Planning for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facilities, p 4
See also:
The responsibility for ensuring that threatened or endangered animal species will not be harmed by a proposed solar facility rests with the solar developers, not the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This is because large-scale solar projects (of up to 150 MW) were deemed by the Virginia General Assembly in 2020 to be “in the public interest” and therefore subject to streamlined Permit By Rule (PBR) procedures which allow developers to be the ones who assess the environmental impact of their projects.
However, it is easy to search the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Environmental Conservation Online System to determine which species are considered endangered or threatened in each of Virginia’s counties.
To do this, go to the Environmental Conservation Online System website. Under Additional Search Tools, begin typing in the name of the county, then click on the full name in the drop-down list.
This will generate a list of species that are endangered, threatened, or of concern. Using Shenandoah County as an example, there are two bat species listed as Endangered: the Virginia big-eared bat and the Indiana bat.
Click on the highlighted Latin scientific name of the species to access the critical habitat map and see the exact area where the species is located. Here’s the critical habitat map for the endangered Indiana bat (green areas are its known locations).
These maps are always worth checking during research into any proposal for an industrial-level solar facility in Virginia.
